Congressman Mike Ross, WD5DVR, Says Stop BPL

Yes it is, and I can't understand why it amuses me.

 

SWAG brings to mind speculation. Since almost all of the variables apparently have no limits, assuming any value for each of the variables would be a total speculation.

So, it should follow that those who claim to be proficient in use of the equation could be called speculators.

Could repeated use of such an equation lead to excessive speculation? In other words, could such tendencies in behavior become a trait or characteristic of individuals who routinely work with the equation as a result of that effort?

 

If laughter is the best medicine, you two guys just gave me another 50 years of living.

 

Actually, Cinci is a major airline hub. I've changed planes there many times when flying USAir. So if you're going West from 3-land, you really should imagine it.

And the Ohio river is rather nice sailing, I hear. I would be extremely careful of barge traffic, but BPL doesn't go into VHF ranges where Marine radio lives.

It's just the "hobby" communications - you know, ham and short-wave broadcasting - expendables, in the opinion of some people on here - that are damaged or destroyed by BPL. That does include HF emergency communications, the only kind that got through in many instances during the tsunami emergency ops. But that's hobby, and we can do without them.

 

Careful, lest we be getting one of these........

 

I like the part about this is a private notice for you and your counsel and you are not to distribute it in any form or any medium.

If he emailed it, or sent it in the mail it becomes your property. It is not his determination of what you can do with it.

 

Now maybe the FCC will sit up and take notice that BPL=BAD

Doug, KB7RKY

 

Don't hold your breath. They have not let facts get in their way yet on this subject.

 

So noted.

Many thanks.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Hi Brian,

I am not a student of anyone's to my knowledge. I finished my education 20 years ago.

If you would like to form a SETI thread, then see if Fred wants it up. If so, I would be delighted to participate.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Chip,

It's not nice to consistently call others in these forums "fatboy" especially when those you are referring to are only 140# in weight and specialize in forensic psychiatry.

Ed

 

Sir:

I don't call "others" 'fatboy'. That is a false statement. Where do you get these fantasies?

KE4PJW uses that moniker. Here's what he said on QRZ.COM on 26 MAR 2005:

--------------------------
"I have used the online handle "fatboy" since Dec 1984 and has been my nickname longer than that, so feel free to call me "fatboy". Not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but hey whatever makes you happy"

--------------------------

That is how he is called.  It is the one he uses on his e-mail. Thus I have used it. If you followed this thread you would already know this. I have not called anyone else fatboy, for the simple reason that that is not what they have called themselves.

As I have publicly stated, I am more than happy to call KE4PJW by any name he wishes. It is not used nor presented as disparagement: my preference is to call him something else...and that is..? Terry? What is his pleasure?

On another matter, I remind you that, to my knowledge,  you have not resolved a dispute in which you have made false characterizations and false statement(s). It is in your best interest to resolve this dispute . Absence of recent feedback from me has not changed the situation.

I do not wish to engage you in dialogue until this matter is resolved. Please abide by my wishes on this. Thank you.

Chip N1IR

 

No;

What I said is that this type of archived, globally accessible dialogue is not accessible on ham radio.

I just used HF to test an antenna this morning.

RE: HF-- I have 9BDXCC; #1 DXCC Honor Roll; won many contests; and so on.

I have been a ham for almost 40 years.

Is there something you would like a seasoned OM to tell YOU about HF?

73,
Chip N1IR[/quote]

As a matter of fact, there is.  Why do you want to see the destruction of amateur radio?   Why is it in your best interests?  Why do you not care about limiting interference in our frequency spectrum?[/QUOTE]
The nice thing about getting older is that once was interpreted by some others as arrogance becomes true wisdom.

It would be fun to list all the so-called 'things' that, in the past, also had the bona fide fear factor of destroying ham radio.

Here is but a short list:

1) Television--the growing ubiquity of TV in the 1950's brought on unprecedented complaints of RFI and TVI. However, hams WORKED THE PROBLEM and the two now peacefully coexist;

2) CB Radio--As CB radio got out of hand, there was an unjustified but real fear that some ham bands would be taken away to discourage CB'ers from using them. Most notably , 10M. In fact, the 10-10 Club was formed for this very reason. Funny, we still have 10M. So much for that goofiness;

3) The Woodpecker--I don't mean 'Woody'. This was the OTH HF radar in Russia that cause UNIVERSAL and SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE to HF. And yet, ham radio went on; HF use grew substantially in the period; contests grew substantially in the period; and life went on. Can you imagine if the goofy, activist veneer that many hams are espousing was used against the Woodpecker in 1980? Would we have seen blockades of the Russian Embassy? Taking Hostages? Wasting our Congressmen's time over the issue? Lobbying to bomb Russia to save ham radio? Yes, it would have been silly then, much as the goofiness we see over BPL is goofy now;

4) Touch lamps--Yep, A major HF noise source. But we all still operate and they still are more than a few of these around;

There are very likely oodles of more examples; I only list these few to make my point which is--for the umpteenth time-- the BPL issue has ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. IF BPL HARMFULLY INTERFERES with ham HF users, then the BPL folks are OBLIGATED to either mitigate the interference or SHUT IT DOWN.

This is ALL hams need nor should ask for as 'protection'.

Activists approaches which seek--beforehand-- to KILL A TECHNOLOGY, and even INTERFERE with BONA FIDE BUSINESSES in the 'name' of preventing global HF interference are off the mark; factually wrong; and CERTAINLY NOT part of the ham radio I signed up to.

You should be ashamed to see ham radio in this way. IMO, it WILL destroy the service as we know it.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

I don't know what you are talking about. I do not have an active website at the moment. I don't see any reference to it, either. Nor did I discuss any lawsuit.

Can you explain what you are alluding to?

The issue is my e-mail address: W6EM has produced an e-mail link that is not the one I give out to 'hams', and haven't for some time. It is an AOL address. I don't own the AOL website.

If you wish to e-mail me, be sure your content is neither harrassing nor libelous, and is pertinent to a topic to which I have invited a private response.

IMO, public comments require public responses, if any.

That e-mail, BTW, is listed in the qrz data base and is not the one W6EM gave.

Do you have it right now?

73,
Chip N1IR

 

According to an announcement on 23 May by the NAAR-ARRL, BPL is now A-O-K.

So WHY are some hams spending time and money wasting congresses' time on this matter??

73,
Chip N1IR